[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [二諦義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854) › 2.7 # 二諦義 2.7 二諦義 2.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.7) 問情智二於諦，何因得有耶？解云：一於但一、一於有二。一於但一者，凡夫顛倒，謂瓶衣等諸法為有。此瓶衣等物，有佛無佛常於凡夫是有。如《涅槃經》云「十二因緣，有佛無佛性相常住。」但小乘釋有二人，毘婆闍婆提云：是無為常住法。薩婆多彈云：恒有為常。如火，有佛無佛常熱，不可言火有佛熱、無佛不熱，有佛無佛恒熱為常，十二因緣亦爾。今明世諦亦如此，諸法於凡常有，常有世諦也。一於二義者，即是諸賢聖，真知諸法空，為第一義。言二義者，就本迹兩意以釋之。本迹義，則諸佛出世故有。諸佛出世，知向顛倒諸法性空也。迹本義，則諸佛法身，本知顛倒性空。故《法華》云「我以佛眼觀見六道眾生」，此即在法身地，本知顛倒性空也。略尋二諦名，根本大意如此。然義必須得其根本、識其大意；若不得意，義不中用。如《中論》序大小乘人不識佛說空有意，所以成失。前序小乘云「像法鈍根，求十二因緣、陰入界等決定相，不知佛意，但著文字。」次序大乘云「聞說畢竟空，不知何因緣故空。」為此義故，龍樹出世造論，申佛教意也。既有明則，今昉而學之也。次問：既有於諦教諦，佛何意說於諦與教諦耶？解云：如來所以說二於諦者，欲令眾生一節轉兩節轉，說於令悟非於非不於。何者？於無名相中強名相說，無名而說名，令悟名無名，亦非於非不於。為眾生說於，令悟於非於非不於。故經云「知有非有，本性清淨」，又云「欲令眾生深識第一義諦，故說世諦」，又云「一切有無法，了達非有無」。為是故說於，令悟非於非不於也。所言一節轉二節轉，何者是耶？一節轉者，說有於凡是諦，說空於聖是諦。作如此說者，令眾生轉有入空。何者？有於凡是有，此有實無所有。宣說有，於凡是有，則知此有不有。此正為凡夫，凡夫謂諸法實有，今說此有於凡是有。若知有於凡是有，即知此有非有，斯則因有悟不有。經云「知有不有」，又經云「欲令眾生深識第一義諦故說世諦」，又論云「若不因世俗，不得第一義」也。兩節轉者，說有於凡是實；對有於凡是實，說空於聖是實，名二於諦。既說空有於緣二，即知於二不二，說於二顯不二。故經云「一切有無法，了達非有無」也。若好釋者，於二者明非二，非謂是非二。若言於二為顯不二，此言平鈍。若駿悟解者，於二者明非是二、非謂是非二，亦應須上揚、不得下抑。上揚則兩離。何者？於二非是二，則離二；非謂是非二，不著不二。此則悟非二非不二、非偏非不偏，清淨正道也。然作如此說，於諦者即是教諦。何處別有教諦？只作如此目詺於諦，即是教諦，即是依二諦說法。從來人聞師說於諦教諦，作二諦解，誦語鸚鵡喙鵄脚耳。今明如向所明無別教諦，說於即教也。 > Question: By what cause do the two truths from the perspective of delusion and cognition come to exist? Explanation: One perspective has only one \[truth\]; one perspective has two. As for the one perspective having only one: ordinary persons are inverted, taking conditioned phenomena such as jars and robes to be existent. These things such as jars and robes are constantly existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present. Just as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present, the nature and characteristics of the twelve links of dependent origination are eternally present.' Yet in the Hīnayāna, there are two masters who interpret this: the Vibhajyavādin says that it is an unconditioned, eternally present dharma; the Sarvāstivādin refutes this, saying that being constantly conditioned is eternal. Just like fire, which is constantly hot whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present—one cannot say that fire is hot when a Buddha is present and not hot when no Buddha is present; being constantly hot whether a Buddha is present or not is \[its\] eternity; the twelve links of dependent origination are also like this. Now it is explained that conventional truth is also like this: conditioned phenomena are constantly existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, constantly having conventional truth. As for one perspective having two meanings: this refers to the worthy and holy ones truly knowing that conditioned phenomena are empty, which constitutes the ultimate. Speaking of two meanings is explained in terms of the two senses of the fundamental and the trace. In the sense of the fundamental and the trace, it exists because the Buddhas appear in the world. When the Buddhas appear in the world, they know that the aforementioned inverted conditioned phenomena are empty of nature. In the sense of the trace and the fundamental, the dharmakāya of the Buddhas fundamentally knows that inversion is empty of nature. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: 'With the Buddha-eye I observe and see sentient beings in the six destinies'—this means that on the ground of the dharmakāya, it fundamentally knows that inversion is empty of nature. Briefly investigating the names of the two truths, their fundamental and grand purport is like this. However, regarding the meaning, one must grasp its root and understand its grand purport; if one does not grasp the purport, the meaning is of no use. Just as the preface to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states that people of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna did not understand the Buddha's purport in speaking of emptiness and existence, and so fell into error. Earlier, the preface says of the Hīnayāna: 'Those of dull faculties in the semblance dharma age seek determined characteristics in the twelve links of dependent origination, the aggregates, sense fields, and realms, not understanding the Buddha's purport and merely clinging to the written words.' Next, the preface says of the Mahāyāna: 'Hearing the teaching of ultimate emptiness, they do not understand by what causes and conditions it is empty.' For the sake of this meaning, Nāgārjuna appeared in the world and composed the treatise, elucidating the Buddha's intended meaning in the teaching. Since there is a clear model, we now begin to study it. Next question: Since there are the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching, with what intention did the Buddha speak of the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching? Explanation: The reason why the Tathāgata spoke of the two truths from perspective is because he wished to make sentient beings turn at one stage and turn at two stages, speaking of perspective to make them awaken to neither perspective nor non-perspective. Why? In the midst of that which is without names and characteristics, names and characteristics are forcibly spoken; speaking names where there are no names makes them awaken to names being without names, and also neither perspective nor non-perspective. Speaking of perspective for the sake of sentient beings is to make them awaken to perspective being neither perspective nor non-perspective. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Knowing that existence is not existent, the original nature is pure.' It also says: 'Wishing to make sentient beings deeply recognize the ultimate truth, he speaks conventional truth.' It also says: 'Thoroughly penetrating that all existent and non-existent phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent.' It is for this reason that he spoke of perspective, to make them awaken to neither perspective nor non-perspective. What is meant by 'turning at one stage and turning at two stages'? Turning at one stage means: speaking of existence being true from the perspective of ordinary persons, and speaking of emptiness being true from the perspective of holy ones. Making this kind of statement makes sentient beings turn away from existence and enter into emptiness. Why? Existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons; this existence is truly non-existent. Proclaiming that existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons makes them know that this existence is non-existent. This is precisely for ordinary persons: ordinary persons think that conditioned phenomena are truly existent, so now it is spoken that this existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons. If one knows that existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, one immediately knows that this existence is non-existent; this, then, is awakening to non-existence by means of existence. The sūtra says: 'Knowing that existence is not existent.' The sūtra also says: 'Wishing to make sentient beings deeply recognize the ultimate truth, he speaks conventional truth.' The treatise also says: 'If one does not rely on the conventional, one cannot attain the ultimate.' Turning at two stages means: speaking of existence being real from the perspective of ordinary persons; in contrast to existence being real from the perspective of ordinary persons, speaking of emptiness being real from the perspective of holy ones—these are called the two truths from perspective. Since it is spoken that emptiness and existence are two from the perspective of conditions, one immediately knows that from the perspective of the two, they are non-dual; speaking of them from the perspective of the two reveals non-duality. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Thoroughly penetrating that all existent and non-existent phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent.' If properly explained: regarding the two from perspective, it clarifies that they are not two, not that there is a 'non-two'. If one says that perspective of the two is to reveal non-duality, this statement is mediocre and dull. If one has sharp understanding, regarding the two from perspective, it clarifies that they are not two, and it is not meant that there is a 'non-two'; one should also uplift it and must not suppress it. Uplifting it brings about dual detachment. Why? Being from the perspective of the two is not being two, which departs from the two; not meaning that there is a 'non-two' does not cling to non-duality. This is awakening to neither two nor non-two, neither one-sided nor non-one-sided, the pure and correct path. However, when spoken in this way, the truth from perspective is precisely the truth as teaching. Where else could there separately be a truth as teaching? Merely designating the truth from perspective in this way is precisely the truth as teaching; this is precisely preaching the Dharma by relying on the two truths. People hitherto have heard their masters speak of the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching and interpreted them as two truths, merely reciting words like a parrot's beak or a kite's feet. Now it is clarified that, as explained above, there is no separate truth as teaching; speaking of perspective is itself the teaching. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.6) - [Next: 2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.8) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.7) · Pramāṇa